User talk:Lar/Liberal Semi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
   Vista-folder home.png
About me
   


   Nuvola apps bookcase.svg
Essays
   


   Crystal keditbookmarks.png
Trinkets
   


   Crystal 128 babelfish.png
Trivia
   


   Crystal 128 yast babelfish.png
Visited
   


   Vista-kate.png
Talk
     

I recognize that this user page belongs to the Wikipedia project and not to me personally. As such, I recognize that I am expected to respectfully abide by community standards as to the presentation and content of this page, and that if I do not like these guidelines, I am welcome either to engage in reasonable discussion about it, to publish my material elsewhere, or to leave the project.


Please read the two blue boxes :).

A Note on how things are done here:

Being a "grumpy old curmudgeon", I have certain principles governing this talk page which I expect you to adhere to if you post here. (This talk page is my "territory", (although I acknowledge it's not really mine, it's the community's) and I assume janitorial responsibility for it.)

  • Please observe Wikipedia:Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette here.
  • I may, without notice, refactor comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. If I inadvertently change the meaning of anything, please let me know so I can fix it!
  • While I reserve the right to delete comments I find egregiously poor form, I am normally opposed to doing so and use monthly random archives instead. If you post here, your words will remain here and eventually in the archives, so please do not delete them, use strikeouts. In other words, think carefully about what you say rather than posting hastily or heatedly.
  • Edit warring here is particularly bad form. One of my WP:TPW's may well issue a short block, so don't do it.
  • When all else fails, check the edit history.
(cribbed from User:Fyslee's header... Thanks!)
(From User:Lar/Eeyore Policy)
A Note on threading:

Interpersonal communication does not work when messages are left on individual users' talk pages rather than threaded, especially when a third party wishes to read or reply.

Being a "bear of very little brain", I get easily confused when trying to follow conversations that bounce back and forth, so I've decided to try the convention that many others seem to use, aggregation of messages on either your talk page or my talk page. If the conversation is about an article I will try to aggregate on the article's talk page.

  • If the conversation is on your talk page or an article talk page, I will watch it.
  • If the conversation is on my talk page or an article talk page and I think that you may not be watching it, I will link to it in a note on your talk page, or in the edit summary of an empty edit. But if you start a thread here, please watch it.

I may mess up, don't worry, I'll find it eventually. Ping me if you really need to.

please note this is a personal preference rather than a matter of site policy

(From User:Lar/Pooh Policy)


What to Semi?[edit]

Frankly, I wouldn't mind if you semi-protected every NBA bio. They accumulate more vandalism and generally incompetent edits than any other class of articles I watch. But the two above would be a good place to start. Zagalejo^^^ 08:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a thought... but I would want to see evidence of vandalism that wasn't instantly reverted before I liberally semi. Bringing them here seems good. I may not get to these right away so some other TPW should feel free. I go 1 year and give "per liberal use of semiprotection policy. Do not unprotect without contacting me" as the reason.++Lar: t/c 14:46, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Formalizing the process[edit]

I think I need to formalize this so I can do it faster... move it to a subpage and put some guidelines down, or something... I would appreciate it if people give the diffs (2 vandalisms that last longer than 5 min each or one that lasts more than an hour, from IPs or newly registered users that semi would have stopped) so I don't have to trawl through the article history... I didn't spot either of those situations but may have missed them. As for the OR and etc... ya, it's a crap article, but SP doesn't address that. Flagged revisions does a better job. ++Lar: t/c 00:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to move it to a subpage. I'll perform the move and write the guidelines later this week if you don't get to it. nearly 7 hours, if that counts. Hell, half the article was uncited borderline BLP violations until I gutted it. Enigmamsg 05:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
Give me a couple days to work on the page first, I have a couple of ideas. (I think a table format with the diffs in a separate column is a good way to go) ++Lar: t/c 05:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
This (and the page with it with the list) is that formalization. ++Lar: t/c 03:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Criteria questions[edit]

Time period[edit]

Over what time period can these diffs be from? I've just given an example where two IP vandalisms were from the last fortnight, but would we indef semi a BLP which was vandalised every couple of years? ϢereSpielChequers 11:59, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

This one seems clear... the time period can go as far back as you like, but not beyond the last time the article was semi (or full) protected, if any. However if an article is only getting vandalised once every two years, it's probably not a very good candidate. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Non Bios[edit]

Some articles that are definitely not bios can wind up with biographical information, can I suggest that we make bio related vandalism the threshold? So two diffs showing people being named at wanker for more than five minutes would get that article semiprotected. But a footballers bio would not be protected simply because his team was maligned (though I appreciate it isn't often that you could describe vandalism to somebodies bio as not being biographic vandalism). ϢereSpielChequers 12:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


Seriousness[edit]

I would like to suggest that we factor the level of malice and harm into this policy. Taking the two examples I gave re Richard Dawkins, clearly some vandalism is more distasteful than others. At the other end of the scale I doubt if a certain TV personality would be greatly offended to discover that our article on Beaver once contained a warning that they were creating an army of 8 foot tall beavers to take over the world. ϢereSpielChequers 12:28, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

comments[edit]

The above are all good considerations but these take this out of the realm of "easy". I want easy to evaluate criteria because I think the volume may increase. ++Lar: t/c 17:23, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

maybe if one is not in the easy pile, who ever posts it could address some of the above concerns (at least the ones that take an article out of the easy category)? i.e., if we make it easy for you (or other tpw-admins) to decide, we've done the right thing. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the seriousness aspect should be doable, we already have a CSD category for attacks, so why not for this? ϢereSpielChequers 12:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
Not opposed to the idea, just not sure how it would work. I'd like to see more people bringing stuff here before we try to get too elaborate, though. ++Lar: t/c 02:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Admins participating here are free to use their own discretion. There are a few that may or may not still be pending that I haven't protected because it's petty vandalism. I assume Kevin skipped them for the same reason, as he protected one lower on the list and left the rest. لennavecia 20:56, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
That's pretty much the reason. There will always be a level of discretion involved. Kevin (talk) 04:04, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving strategy[edit]

Question was raised about archiving. I agree that monthly archiveing, if we get to that point, is a good approach. Probably the standard naming convention (names such as User:Lar/Liberal Semi/archive/2009-03 for the first one) is the way to go, rather than strict numerical as is done at ANI or my main talk page... Thoughts? ++Lar: t/c 15:24, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. archive by month would be good, and easily trackable if we wanted to go back and look at why we did something. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think we should have them be User:Lar/Liberal Semi/Archives/Archive 1 and pipe them to the date. As it is, the problem with noticeboard archiving, and that of DYK, for example, isn't that the archives themselves are numeric, but that there is nothing in the archive listing that makes them easily to search through. As long as the archives are piped in the list, it shouldn't be a problem. Naming them as Lar has them will prevent use of any templates to connect one archive to the next. لennavecia 15:50, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I am willing to handle the manual archiving, if you want. Set it up the way you want it, and I'll follow the format. I don't know how long this user project will last, but I would assume a few months at least? I hope it goes on in perpetuity, but obviously it isn't up to me. Enigmamsg 17:31, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I think the goal is to see a change in standards, or use this until real improvements are made project wide. So, the hope would be that it doesn't last too long, at least not in user space. لennavecia 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Naturally I'd rather see something done project-wide and I've voted in the related polls, but I am not optimistic. Too many people are dead set against BLPs getting deleted or protected. Lar is a good bit more optimistic on the subject than I. I just hope that if changes aren't made, that there are admins willing to protect BLPs. Enigmamsg 18:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's use numbers then, because if we use numbers we can set up a nav template easily enough (I'll just copy the nav template I did for my talk pages User:Lar/TalkArchiveNav which has back/forth scrolling that's numerically driven). It is my sincere hope that we will not be archiving this for long, though. Please spread the word though... the more articles get semiprotected this way, the harder it is to argue that they should not be semiprotected. And be rigorous on rejecting possibly good faith edits as a justification. If it's not CLEARLY vandalism, reject it... ++Lar: t/c 16:31, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Although, technically, a template that takes names of the form 2009-04 or whatever is easy enough to set up, it just takes more parameters (three) than just one and use of the {{#expr}} magic word construct...) ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Probably time to start archiving. Can you set up the first archive page? I'll take it from there. Thanks! Enigmamsg 15:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, I'll do the pure numeric we were talking about and do the template. Tonite hopefully. However I am not averse to waiting till partway into next month before archiving this month's items (ala how I do my talk page archives)... ++Lar: t/c 15:52, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I have set up the first archive (for March) at User:Lar/Liberal_Semi/Archive 1 I went with this naming convention because it's what I use elsewhere and I want to reuse some of the templates and stuff. I still have work to do on getting that set up. It covers March. Early in May we can move all of April to User:Lar/Liberal_Semi/Archive 2 ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

I've now finished setting up the archive header template User:Lar/Liberal Semi/ArchiveHeader. All parameters are named rather than positional. ++Lar: t/c 01:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

How often and when to archive[edit]

Going forward I'd rather wait a few days after the first of the month before archiving... say the 5th or so, but it's not too big a deal (not to the level of wanting to undo the archive of April that VirtualSteve just did, anyway...). ++Lar: t/c 13:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Cheers, respected and understood.--VS talk 12:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
    • No worries. I tweaked what you did because I now have the whole header in a template. LMK if it's not clear how to do further archives... ++Lar: t/c 16:24, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Use of hidings[edit]

see [1] ... strikes me as a good idea... that currently hidden stuff is the first thing to get archived, I think. Also I hadn't seen {{hidden begin}} and {{hidden end}} before, neat! ++Lar: t/c 05:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Glad you like - it's an easy way to compact and sectionalise whilst still maintaining fairly recent history on the page in question. Of course older sections after a few months can be archived in the usual fashion.--VS talk 05:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Questions about the process and the criteria, other ways to achieve the goal[edit]

(Refactored from User_talk:Lar#questions_about_User:Lar.2FLiberal_Semi to keep this discussion in the right place.)

Has User:Lar/Liberal Semi been approved (per se) by the community? I'm pretty uneasy with articles like Elijah Dukes going from no protection to a year semi-protection because someone didn't fix a couple bad edits within a few minutes. If that's the criteria, I can see much of the wiki being shut down to anonymous users in short order. Wknight94 talk 14:44, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Hasn't been disapproved that I'm aware of, and a year feels about right when doing cost/benefit analysis of time wasted. Articles that get their vandalism reverted instantly and that don't see a lot of it aren't eligible under the criteria I'm using... all we have to do as a community is prevent vandalism, or get it cleaned up instantly, and we won't need to impose semiprotection, will we? ++Lar: t/c 16:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Let me share a few thoughts, and you can do with it as you wish. First of all, I'm with you on the underlying issue. The volume and persistence of BLP violations here is appalling. I'm a fan of semiprotection and I've long considered IP editing to be more trouble than it's worth, personally. I do think that it might be worth considering the means to the end, though.

I've seen a bunch of protections coming across with an edit summary citing your page, and basically ordering other admins not to unprotect the page without "consultation". I think if you just semiprotected these pages with the explanation that BLP was in play, you wouldn't get much argument. Experience teaches me, though, that excellent ideas can be undermined on Wikipedia if their implementation is perceived as high-handed. Reading these edit summaries, I feel like they're a bit peremptory, and I agree with what you're doing and have administrative rights. I think that the average non-admin editor, or an admin who doesn't necessarily agree with your approach, is going to be significantly put off.

Again, I agree with what you're doing. I've used semiprotection similarly where BLP has been an issue, and while I think a year is overkill, that's a relatively minor technical quibble. I guess what I'm saying is that it might be best to either a) evaluate each of these articles on a case-by-case basis and tailor semiprotection to the level and persistence of BLP violations in each, or b) if you're going to cite an organized effort & quasi-policy, and command other admins not to unprotect the page, it really would be best to put this forward at the Village Pump or other venue.

I realize that no one has disapproved yet - or I should say a few people have in a scattered fashion as Wknight94 does here. But at some point this will become an issue, and I think it might be pennywise but pound-foolish to have a bunch of admins semiprotecting articles and citing a personal policy which has not received formal community scrutiny. It'll just trigger the usual, predictable arguments and resentment. Anyhow, just a thought - do with it as you will.

By the way, if you have handy a list of ten or so BLP's that have been problematic, I can add them to my watchlist and keep an eye on them. If other interested parties are willing to do this too, we can probably alleviate some, but not all, of the violations that trigger the need for semiprotection - do you think that would be useful? MastCell Talk 16:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

You can look at that page and find BLPs that have been problematic, and watch whatever ones you like... more eyes is goodness, after all. Perhaps mark with a comment that you're committing to personally watch them. As to why they're protected, each item on the list has links to why it's problematic, which the admin who protected it is committing that they've validated as BEING problematic. Tailor the length to the severity? Sure... come on over to the talk page and suggest suggest some guidelines. As for the wording, I'd welcome a better one, you're right, reading quickly might leave one with the notion that it's peremptory... Improvement welcomed.
I don't like BLP violations either but a year?! Like MastCell says (or implies anyway), let's start a coordinated effort of watchlisting troublesome BLPs, or some other solution. Blindly sprotecting them for a year is essentially shutting down the wiki. I don't think Elijah Dukes himself would care so much about his WP article to want a year of sprotection. How about starting with a year of sprotection and inviting that any admin that adds the article to their watchlist can decrease the length? Something other than the slightly WP:POINTy process going on at User:Lar/Liberal Semi now. Wknight94 talk 18:24, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Come on over to the talk (User_talk:Lar/Liberal Semi) and let's talk about it. Thats why there's a talk page after all. ++Lar: t/c 18:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

← Well, I guess my suggestions (and they are only suggestions) would be:

  • Alter the edit summary. Instead of linking to a quasi-policy, just state "Persistent and significant violations of policy on biographical articles by multiple IPs." I don't think anyone in their right mind would dispute that as a rationale for semiprotection, and it leverages existing policy. You can still keep going with this project, which I think is a Good Thing, but it may be most effective to base it explicitly on existing, accepted policy.
  • Alter the duration. I understand you're being "liberal", but I took that to mean liberal with applying semiprotection where living people are concerned. A one-year first-time semiprotection for a single instance of recent vandalism isn't liberal - I think most admins would consider it excessive. Why not make the first semiprotection more in line with current standard durations, and watchlist the article so that it can be reapplied if the problem recurs? It will quickly become apparent when you go to semi an article that it's already been semi'd once or twice for the same problem, and the admin will be able to take this into account in imposing a longer duration.
  • Alter the "please consult before reversing" bit. Hopefully, the admins we're promoting understand that they should discuss any potentially controversial reversal of an administrative action. If they don't get that, then an edit-summary demand isn't going to help. Also, you're semi'ing articles for 1 year. If I get a request to unprotect an article that's been semi'd for months, it's really not necessary to track down the protecting admin for a discussion. These sorts of requests are handled, and well-handled, at WP:RFPP all the time, usually down to the judgment of the admin reviewing the request rather than a discussion about a 4-month-old semiprotection. If people are reversing these protections right off the bat, that would be another matter - but that doesn't seem to be happening, so this wording is just going to put peoples' backs up to no good end.

Those are my thoughts. MastCell Talk 19:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am open to altering the edit summary, and mentioning WP:BLP seems valid, as it is what this is all about. As for the length, if an article has been vandalised by different IPs for months or years how does a short protection address the problem? I have protected articles for 1 or 2 weeks, only to see the vandalism return immediately the protection expires. Then we gradually increase the length until we are protecting for 6 months or a year anyway. I see no benefit in going through that process, and no evidence that escalating protection has any impact on IP vandalism during the periods when the protection has expired. Kevin (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell partially. The duration is fine to me, but the edit summary should be changed. Get rid of the "consult with me" part, because that sounds wrong and it's understood that admins are not supposed to overturn each other's actions without at least communicating. Reference the BLP policy, what the WMF has said, what ArbCom has said, etc. In fact, maybe there should be a page referencing those things, and the edit summary can point to that. As for the duration, one week and escalate from there is fine for Biomechanics and the like. It's not fine for BLPs. If multiple instances of vandalism (in many cases here, we're dealing with out and out defamation) can be shown, a year is appropriate, or at least 3 months. Enigmamsg 23:50, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
I am not opposed to altering the edit summary as well, as long as it's clear that the admin that placed the protection has staked their reputation on the protection being necessary and should be consulted. On the appropriate length, I agree with Kevin. These articles are here, nominated, because watchlists, bots, short protections, assumptions of good faith, best intentions, and so forth have failed them. I think a year is appropriate as a starting point.
Now, if someone turns up and says "I guarantee this article will not get vandalism that survives for more than a few seconds, ever" that would be a suitable substitute to semiprotection. Or reason to remove it. (note, that guarantor won't be me, I have decided not to fight vandalism until and unless flagged revisions are properly implemented). But not short of that. ++Lar: t/c 21:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
@Kevin: I think there's probably confirmation bias at work there. I also remember the cases where I've had to go back and reapply semiprotection. I tend to forget the ones I semiprotect for a week and never have trouble with again. In some cases, it's just a kid bored in his school library, and a week (or even a day) of semiprotection does the trick. On the other hand some biographies will always, always be a tempting target for anonymous vandalism and should be semiprotected for the long term or indefinitely. I'm sure your judgment, or that of the average admin, is sufficient to differentiate these - I'm just saying we should trust that judgment rather than "mandating" a 1-year semiprotection off the bat.

@Lar: I dunno, I guess I feel like admins stake their reputation on pretty much every action they take. Most active admins have a target of varying sizes on their backs and people waiting for them to slip up, and this site's quasijudicial processes are about as consistent and predictable as lightning strikes. So it's wise to behave as if your rep is always on the line. I'm not sure I agree with your point about this being a last resort - in the case of Elijah Dukes, it looks like a first resort. I see some sporadic vandalism and BLP violations - none of which appear to have lasted more than an hour or two at most - and no previous failures of semiprotection. Maybe that article isn't typical of where this is being applied. Again, I'm not agitated to unprotect it - I believe in the liberal use of semiprotection - but I think this is probably going beyond where the community (even the BLP-concerned community) is at present.

Maybe I'm wrong. I think flagged revisions are a great idea, and I personally would be very happy if IP editing disappeared tomorrow. But it's unrealistic to expect anyone, or even any group, to be able to guarantee that vandalism will be reverted in seconds. I assume that's just a way of saying that you don't see any alternative to liberal semiprotection. MastCell Talk 22:03, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

But I do see an alternative to liberal semiprotection: Flagged revisions. ++Lar: t/c 22:35, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think we agree that flagged revisions would be a good solution, particularly where BLPs are concerned. MastCell Talk 00:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I am uneasy with several aspects of this. The appearance of cabalism may be foremost. Why is this sitting off in the corner like this? Why not bring it up at a noticeboard somewhere? Why is there basically nothing at this link? Fear of backlash? Making a WP:POINT about flagged revisions? I'd love flagged revisions too but I'm not going to shut down the wiki to see it. Is someone going to undo all these extreme protections when flagged revisions goes into effect?
Another bothersome aspect about this - and overprotection in general - is people forgetting how many good edits are made by IPs and the autoconfirmed-challenged. As MastCell said, I am hearing a lot of confirmation bias. If all you're looking for is IP vandalism, that's all you'll see. In the case of Elijah Dukes, semi-protection would have killed several good edits. The vandalism gets reverted - the lost good edits are unrecoverable. And let's not forget that semi-protection doesn't just stop IPs, it also stops new registered editors. In a few minutes, I found some notable edits that would not have happened if your BLP sprotection strategy were in effect:
  1. [2]
  2. [3]
  3. [4]
  4. [5]
  5. [6]
  6. [7]
I'm scared to pull up Recent Changes and count how many legit IP edits are being made to BLP articles every minute. This is becoming a slippery-slope situation. Wknight94 talk 01:35, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
"Why is there basically nothing at this link? Fear of backlash?" Really? This project started about two weeks ago. It takes time for links to build up. I never created a project, but I did create a userpage describing how to non-admin close an RfA. Whatlinkshere was empty for months, IIRC. True, it didn't involve taking administrator actions, but what exactly are you saying here? That Lar is afraid because he didn't spam a whole bunch of talk and policy pages with the link? Enigmamsg 03:48, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is much different than it was in 2005, or even 2007. We have many more articles than we did before, and maintenance is becoming more difficult (especially with so many talented editors spending hours at RFA, or working on less-than-essential articles like Featured Lists just so they can collect awards.) Logging in a few minutes ago, I found this, this, this, this, and this, and I'm sure I'll find more acts of vandalism soon. (Not all are edits to BLP, and none are libelous or anything, but they're all examples of vandalism that lasted too long. And these aren't obscure Tongan politicians or Cambodian villages. They're all articles that should be on someone's watchlist.)
I agree that many IPs make positive contributions, but ten positive contributions don't make up for a nasty piece of libel. Until we get flagged revisions or the overall culture of the site changes, I see no other choice but to make new editors jump through a few hoops. Zagalejo^^^ 05:37, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
@WK - You ask a number of good questions. I'll try to address them as best I can. Cabalism? Hardly. This is just something that got started because one editor, Enigmaman, was asking Sarcasticidealist, now retired, to protect articles he was watching... when SI retired, he asked if I would as well. I started, but I realised that it is important to track these... for several reasons. Most importantly so that if Flagged Revisions gets implemented, that they aren't forgotten about, and can be unprotected after a good flagged revision is found (unless, by then, the community as a whole has decided that all BLP's should be indefinitely semiprotected). (answering your "Is someone going to ..." question, with a "yes"). So the page came into existance in stages to enable tracking, and a few people have helped out, among them one of our sitting arbitrators, Risker. No cabal. No secret. No desire to hide. Just not a big deal yet because it's not necessarily all worked out.
To your second major point, which is essentially "some edits are being lost". Granted. I'm absolutely sure some good edits that otherwise would have been made, aren't. But... there is no deadline. We have plenty of time for good edits to be made, and if they truly are good, eventually they WILL be made. On the other hand, every second that a bad edit persists is a second when the project is being actively damaged. The cost to the project in damaged reputation, and FAR more importantly, the cost to the BLP victim, far far outweighs the benefit of the good edits foregone. We are not here to damage the lives and reputations of BLP victims. I'm willing to lose 1000 good edits, temporarily, in exchange for preventing one bad one, indefinitely.
So I stand behind this tiny step, this drop in the fire bucket that will do a tiny bit to quench the raging fire of damage that vandalism and malicious edits to BLPs are doing... I stand behind every protection I placed as being justified, unless I'm presented with evidence that it wasn't, in which case I'll pull it. (and that's another reason for this page, to keep all this info about protections I placed in one place where it's easy to work with) I've chosen not to spend time on fighting vandalism directly (although if others want to, they're welcome to it), but I'm willing to spend time fighting vandalism at a more effective level. Hope that clarifies matters. ++Lar: t/c 11:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I understand and I can see the merits. But we already have WP:RFPP. You think admins there are doing a poor job? Why else would you need to create this WP:RFPP where every request is guaranteed a year-long block? There are proper ways to do things and starting a quasi-secret alternate process is not one of them. Should I start a secret anti-project where we undo all of the protections done here? Of course I wouldn't but you see the point - having small groups of admins quietly coordinating to do things differently than everyone else is ----- well, cabalish. I can't think of a better word for it. Bring this process to light... Combine this into the regular WP:RFPP... Get buy-in from the community... and I'll follow you to the promise land. Wknight94 talk 12:15, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
You need to drop the attempt to apply "cabal" badging, it won't get you anywhere with me. If this was "secret", you wouldn't see this page here at all... All you would see would be protections, and they wouldn't have consistently worded tagging making them easy to spot. Because surely you recognise that if I wanted to organize this secretly, I would have. Once you drop that, I'm happy to address your other concerns. ++Lar: t/c 12:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Then I assume you wouldn't mind me raising the issue in a place with a wider audience. I would also bring up that the veil of Righteous BLP Libel and Defamation Protection looks quite thin when I see protections like José Reyes (shortstop). The justification there is three edits that are clearly silly little childish vandal edits, and not libellous or defaming in any way to any rational person. When that happens, it looks less like BLP Protection and more like good ole fashioned anti-anonymous editing wrapped with a BLP Protection label. I think few would believe that this would cause so much distress to the actual Mr. Reyes that he would run to his lawyer and bring down the Foundation. I could be convinced to buy your product here if the implementation matched the pitch. If the real issue is that more care needs to be applied, then I'm happy to work with you to ensure that happens. Wknight94 talk 14:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I find it quite troubling that that edit lasted nearly an hour, childish vandalism or not. As for your overall point, if you take issue with specific protections, I'm sure Lar or one of the other admins here would be willing to take a second look and see if your concerns have merit. Enigmamsg 03:24, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break[edit]

(unindent)If you look at my protection log, you'll find that pretty well every protection I've made in the last several months, regardless of duration, has been made in relation to some aspect of the BLP policy. This doesn't count the hundreds of oversights and hidden revisions I've done since January, at least half of which are in relation to BLP issues, often in addition to the privacy policy. Lar and I don't agree on a lot of things, but one thing that we do agree about is that problems in BLP-related articles need to be addressed when they're identified. In a perfect world, a lot of these issues would be caught on flagged revisions. There are also plenty of articles where autoconfirmed editors are adding inappropriate information. Protection and semi-protection are tools in the arsenal. Due to RL pressures, I don't have a lot of time to work on this issue right now; what I *can* do is try to take care of the articles whose problems come to my attention, and support other admins in their efforts to try and take care of other articles. The idea that there is a difference between silly childish vandalism and malicious vandalism disturbs me. It doesn't make much difference to the person whose name is associated with that content. Risker (talk) 14:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

That difference is related to whether this is truly a BLP protection issue or whether it's a more general vandalism issue. Vandalism happens everywhere and it makes us looks foolish. It's always made us look foolish. In BLPs and everywhere else. I.e., there doesn't need to be special accommodations made for childish vandalism in BLP articles vs. others. Do you really think José Reyes is going to be personally offended if he sees that his Wikipedia page says he hit 1000000000000000 home runs? Or if his page says that "Lyle is gay"? He's going to think we're idiots just like if he saw that the Earth is "full of poop" or that Thomas Jefferson is "really really cool". Those are not what I consider BLP issues and can be dealt with just as well at WP:RFPP as they are here. And if the Jose Reyes vandalism is deemed to warrant almost permanent semi-protection, then the same standard should be applied to Earth and Thomas Jefferson and Dog and any other article that gets ridiculous graffiti on it from time to time. Shut down the wiki. Wknight94 talk 15:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure where this is going exactly, but I read some of what you are saying as somewhat strident. Let's start over perhaps... what are you advocating here? This page is a little pilot program, with certain parameters, designed to see if applying long term protection to certain articles, when they meet certain criteria, is an effective and manageable approach. It's not necessarily ready for wider review. It may or may not scale. It may or may not be the right approach. But BLPs are chosen because they are more important than other kinds of articles, they affect living people (not dead ones or corporations or trees or whatever). Simple vandalism (as opposed to slander, edit warring, unsourced statements or whatever) was chosen because it's easy to yea/nay, it's possible to determine quickly if an article has had this done to it or not. Can you drop the polemic tone and state what you think should be changed in this? ++Lar: t/c 16:39, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it would just be easier if we just list off the issues we have with the page. Please excuse me if this seems to come off as a laundry list, I just think it would be better to get to the heart of the problem. I'll just speak for myself so these may not be the views of others in the discussion.
  • I don't think the blanket one year duration is the best of ideas. I've seen some articles go directly from never having protection to straight to one year. Sure in some cases protection itself is necessary, but one year seems too excessive. How about protecting it in context of the protection log? If it's a reoccuring problem, then longer protection would be warranted. But for the first time that an article has a valid BLP concern why not try a couple of weeks? If it starts back up you can always reprotect it.
  • I think it would be best to change the reasoning for the protection. (First, the "please consult me before unprotecting" part) It's generally expected for an admin to discuss with the admin who took action before undoing anything, so the request is a bit redundant. Also, users who aren't familiar with the situation might mistake that the protecting admin is the one who ultimately decides whether it is protected or not. Another issue is that the protection reasoning never makes any mention of BLP concerns. Just a vague statement about liberal use of semi-protection.
  • A (small, but important) thing that is important is to make sure that you are certain the article is a BLP issue. I recently had a discussion with Kevin about an article he protected. It turns out that the reference was just deleted and all that was needed was a simple revert.
  • One of the big issues I have with this system is how it's being done. (This goes along with Wknight's point about Cabalism/not being mainstream, however you want to word it.) If you want things to change in terms of BLP and protection, I have no problem with that, but there are proper venues for these things. Why not try the village pump, or AN, or something of that sort? We need community consensus on this, not just a handful of editors who want to try something new. When the community wanted to have a trial for flagged protection, we had to seek consensus. Shouldn't this trial program get the same concensus as well?
  • The final point I'll make is that if this does gain community consensus and is to continue it needs to be made so there is more public awareness of it. One, so if there is an article with a justifiable concern it can easily be brought to our attention. Also, it allows the community to be aware of decisions that are made and provides them with a place to express concerns if they disagree with an admin's decisions.
Hopefully this helps express some of the issues with this page in a more direct manner. Cheers, Icestorm815Talk 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2[edit]

I haven't read the above discussion in full, as I'm about to head out and just noticed this, but I'll just say the following as one of the admins participating in the liberal protection. I don't particularly care how we word the summary, so whatever is placed as the example on the page, I'll be happy to use. As far as duration, the project has spent far too many years being reckless with its handling of BLPs, and continues to this day to fail completely in regards to making any meaningful changes to protect the living people who have "biographies" forced upon them on one of the world's largest websites, editable by anyone, and ranking them at the top of Google. For that reason, I'll protect for a year until I'm mandated not to. That said, accusations of cabalism are laughable and inappropriate. Back it up with something or keep that to yourself. We're no more of a cabal than any WikiProject. لennavecia 20:50, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, the telltale sign of a cabal: overreaction to being called a cabal. Face-wink.svg
Everyone's said their piece and now words like "strident" are being hurled so I'm done here. FWIW, I will be looking for edit (s)protected requests and unprotection requests on pages protected here. When encountered, I will make my own determination on whether or not the protection was justified. If not, I will be unprotecting - stern protection instructions notwithstanding. If the practices here become officially sanctioned, let me know. Wknight94 talk 21:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Policy on WP is descriptive... it describes what actually is done. As I said above I'm open to modifying this as long as it stays simple to administer. If you unprotect, do the courtesy of updating the item on the list to note that, if you would be so kind so folk know, thanks. ++Lar: t/c 22:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Hey, Wk, check out WP:WHEELWAR, then explain, if you don't mind, why you don't believe Wikipedia has a moral obligation to take any steps necessary to protect living individuals, much less all steps necessary. Thanks. لennavecia 06:30, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Well, I absolutely agree with the second part. WP, the project, has a huge moral obligation, as does every WP participant, to every single BLP victim. We are all volunteers and we do what we wish to get involved in, but we should not EVER make things worse, (that's rank irresponsibility) even if we choose not to actively help make things better. But the first part, about WP:WHEEL? I have no reason to believe WK isn't acting in good faith raising these issues, and no reason to believe that taking something to WP:RFPP, or handling something that was brought there by someone else would be wheel warring. This page is not an official process. RFPP is. It is a courtesy request to WK or whoever that if they know an article was brought here that it be mentioned that the protection was lifted. But it's not wheel warring to lift it any more than it is to lift any other protection imposed any other way.
NOTE, however, that it's also not wheel warring to reimpose protection, if, after it was lifted, vandalism reoccurs. If WK or whoever lifts protection, and vandalism reoccurs, even a single instance of it, then clearly the lifting was premature, and I'll reimpose protection as soon as it is brought to my attention. That's not wheel warring, that's the normal ebb and flow of things. IMHO anyway. ++Lar: t/c 15:43, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess we disagree, then. It is my view that one admin reversing the admin action of another without discussion (and I don't consider this general discussion to qualify for individual incidents) to be wheelwarring. However, like you, I don't believe reprotecting following additional vandalism to be wheelwarring. Rather, I see it as further justification for the original protection. لennavecia 17:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
I guess we do. For reference: User talk:NoSeptember/admin policy, which is up at the top of my user page (along with an increasingly large amount of other stuff) although I do think discussion before reversal is very good. Without in any way diminishing the enormous amount of respect I have for you and for your contributions. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, of course. Respect is not lost in disagreement. لennavecia 18:46, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Modifying the straight "one year"[edit]

Tackling the issues raised (by Icestorm815 at 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) )... the first one seems to be with the time. I chose 1 year because it's easy (like many other things about this... easy to request (easier than RFPP), easy to administer). But when you hit "protect" you get to see the protection log. (and I always check to make sure that the vandalism reported is AFTER the last protection, if any... if not, the protection worked and the vandalism isn't "qualifying"). So what if a shorter length were the choice if there have been no previous protections? 3 months instead of a year? Better? Note that if this transmutes into exactly what RFPP is, it's missing the point, but maybe this is a compromise? ++Lar: t/c 22:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'd go with that (and agree with everything Risker says in the thread above). – iridescent 22:55, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think there's a real danger of duplicating RFPP - you're providing a tracking mechanism specifically for BLPs, and a rapid-response team to prioritize protection issues involving biographies. Those are the value added over RFPP. I think tailoring the length of protection to the article log is a better idea than mandating a year, so your suggested tweak is a good one. MastCell Talk 23:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Changing it. ++Lar: t/c 23:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I think the jump straight to 3 months on a previously unprotected article is a bit much as well. The progression should be more like 1 mo, 3mo, 6 mo, 12 mo. (This is still liberal, normally I'd say a week should be the starting point). –xenotalk 12:42, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjustment to criteria for listing an article[edit]

Per comments here and opening here for discussion. Would it assist in our attempt to protect BLP's if the criteria for listing was adjusted to state:

  • The article is a BLP
  • Since the last time semiprotection expired (if any), the article has received defamatory vandalism:
    • EITHER at least two vandalisms from IPs or newly registered users (the kind of vandalism that semiprotection stops) each of which lasted at least 5 minutes before being reverted,
    • OR one such edit vandalism from an IP or newly registered user that lasted at least an hour before being reverted.
    • OR 10 such edits vandalisms (of any duration, even momentary) within any 1 month span from IPs or newly registered users.
  • You are willing to sign your name requesting that it be protected. No anons or newly registered users, sorry. (you'll note THIS page is semiprotected to enforce that).

--VS talk 22:52, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Note, this is issue #2 (by Icestorm815 at 18:09, 23 April 2009 (UTC) ) What's the definition of "defamatory"? How easy is it to apply? That would be an important point. Working RFPP is hard work. (both requesting and working the list)... ++Lar: t/c 22:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes that is a fair point Lar - but perhaps by at least adding the word in our criteria we remove the belief that childish vandalism, which is clearly not defamatory can be included as a valid reason for protection at this project? Also by adjusting the criteria we continue in our efforts to reach a project which has developed to gain wider appeal.--VS talk 23:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Why not just go back to existing policy - WP:BLP? That is, if the article has been the target of edits which persistently or significantly violate BLP, then it qualifies? That's actually a better/broader criterion than "defamatory", it excludes childish vandalism, and it leverages existing, agreed-upon policy. As to specifying the number of edits, I'm not crazy about explicit quantitative definitions. They restrict flexibility (which is essential on Wikipedia) and they tend to be poor substitutes for administrative judgment. MastCell Talk 23:17, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The reason for easily quantifiable criteria is so that an article is unambiguously one side of the line or the other. Rather like CSD criteria. Kevin (talk) 23:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
But the problem with that analogy is that CSD criteria are intentionally designed to be overly conservative. CSD selects out only the most uncontroversial 5% of deletion decisions and streamlines them; any gray area requires more involved discussion and, ultimately, judgment.

Here, you're looking at taking existing policy and liberalizing it to include more gray areas. Does that make sense?

As an aside, I would drop the first criterion - these articles don't have to be biographies, right? Some of the worst problems are with defamation inserted into non-biographical articles. This being Wikipedia, it's not uncommon to see an article on a safe and effective vaccine describe one of its creators as a corrupt baby-killer with blood on his hands. Those kind of edits would be excluded under criterion #1 above. MastCell Talk 23:31, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

If someone else comes up with a competing process for implementing liberal semiprotection that works better, or differently, than this one, awesome... let a hundred flowers bloom! ... but you're trying to move this in the direction of the BLP noticeboard. Just like CSD, this process doesn't get everything it might. That's OK. That's not this process. You can start a competing one if you want. That would be cool! ++Lar: t/c 23:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't mean to be overly critical - I think you have a good infrastructure here. I appreciate what you're doing - I don't have the energy to organize anything along these lines. I don't mean to shoot down what I think is a good idea under development. You've got an interesting project started up, and I don't think there's a need for a competing process - probably better to keep tweaking this one. I'll stop with the above suggestions and leave you guys to it for now. Good luck. MastCell Talk 23:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, no worries, MastCell. So anyway... tweak to this one? I'm still not totally clear on how to tell easily (other than "I know it when I see it", which I do... ) do we want to try that tweak? ++Lar: t/c 04:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
@Kevin: Right. This is a supplement to RFPP (if that), not a replacement. If the article doesn't fit here, it can be taken elsewhere, but the idea here is that it should be a no brainer to work this list. Right now, we more or less have one user bringing in articles... if that increases, keeping up with traffic may be challenging. There are over a quarter million BLPs after all. ++Lar: t/c 23:33, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

[OD] I think this project is worthwhile and towards its growth and longevity tweaking it will be helpful. Tweaking should not reach the stage where it mirrors BLP or RFPP but rather assist it becoming a process that many admins can work. Defamatory may or may not be the right word but IMHO tweaking it so that it reaches the stage where many other admins can apply the process will require an adjectival description before the word vandalism so as to exclude simple non-defamatory vandalism edits.--VS talk 00:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree that tweaking is good, but I disagree that we should exclude simple non-defamatory vandalism edits from this process. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
Currently, it's a matter of administrator discretion. Personally, I won't protect for petty vandalism unrelated to the subject. Like, "butts" being put randomly into the article. لennavecia 18:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Rick James and other BDPs[edit]

The request for protection on Rick James was rejected, as the article is a BDP. Lar mentioned that the BLP policy also covers the biographies of the recently deceased. James has been dead for approximately five years, so he clearly would not be covered. However, it does bring up a good question, which is how do we define "recently" in this context? لennavecia 22:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation would be the same way that the main BLP policy pages do, if possible. I don't off hand have a pointer to exactly where that is... (off hand I think it's well less than 5 years though)... if someone knows, can they place a pointer in the proper place on the intro part of the page? Thx! ++Lar: t/c 04:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia:BLP#Dealing_with_articles_about_the_deceased makes no mention of any time frame. Various discussions have led to no real consensus on the matter. Kevin (talk) 05:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm inclined to interpret time limits broadly, then. See also the request regarding Murder of Gwen Araujo which is currently pending. What do others think? Any issues with a broad interpretation in this area? ++Lar: t/c 12:39, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I was the one nominating Murder of Gwen Araujo. My simple opinion is that if an article about somebody who is dead can seriosuly hurt somebody who is alive, it should be tread as a BLP. I think my reasoning behind that is obvious. In the specific case of Gwen Araujo, I would say that since she was murdered at the age of 17, only 7 years ago... Even assuming her parents were 40 when they had her, which is VERY old for being a parent, they would most likely still be alive now. And that isn't even mentioning her friends... What do you think would be most hurtful and evil: reading on wikipedia that you are an evil child-molestor, or reading that your murdered daughter was an "it"? Dendlai (talk) 13:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not inclined to go overly broad with it. Five years seems excessive. I'd say one year, which gives enough time for the initial attention the death of a notable person brings to wane. As far as the Murder of Gwen Araujo request, there's a misunderstanding of purpose of the BLP policy in regard to that request. لennavecia 14:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Could you, perhaps, point out WHAT the misunderstanding is? My understanding is that BLP is to protect living subjects like, say, parents who would be incredibly hurt by seing their daughter refered to as an it? Far more than any article on them specifically could do. What is the purpose? Dendlai (talk) 14:23, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This is a narrow scope supplement to RFPP, not a replacement. While I support broadening the scope somewhat to include recently deceased, it should not be broadened to include every article. Further, I want to go with the consensus of the admin participants here (which I now number myself as just one of several), who are being asked to stand behind their protections and defend them if needed, so if the consensus comes out that this article does not fit, that's that. I sympathise with your argument and as I said, if this is taken to RFPP I would be inclined to protect it. ++Lar: t/c 14:38, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
BLP is about living subjects. The policy states: which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, so the misunderstanding is there. The policy on biographies of living people/persons is to protect the living subjects of our articles from potential real-world negative affects for them and their loved ones. This isn't about protecting feelings. It's about protecting reputations, privacy and the like. لennavecia 15:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Murder of Gwen Araujo[edit]

The following moved from the request page
I am not an expert on Wikipedia policy, but it is QUITE obvious that the vandalism I pointed out hurts living people (parents, siblings, family, friends). Is it your opinion that a wikipedia article called "Juliancolton's great-grandparents" could have anything in them about you, no matter what, since the article title says it isn't about you? Dendlai (talk) 13:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
This needs to go to RFPP. This board deals specifically with BLPs. As far as what the project covers: living people and the recently deceased. I'm not sure exactly what is considered "recently" (there's a discussion about this on the talk page now), but I am certain seven years ain't it. BLP can be applied to any article, but that doesn't make any article appropriate to be listed here, nor does this vandalism fall under BLP. لennavecia 13:40, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
"I'm not sure exactly what is considered "recently" (there's a discussion about this on the talk page now), but I am certain seven years ain't it. BLP can be applied to any article, but that doesn't make any article appropriate to be listed here, nor does this vandalism fall under BLP. "
First, BLP is obvious IMO when the article can easily hurt living people. People who only seven years ago were alive when their 17 year old daughter/friend were murdered. Secondly.. If you don't think changing a personal pronoun from either of the two human ones (he/she) to the non-human/animal/inanimate one (it) is a BLP violation, I would say you aren't fit to in any way whatsoever to comment on BLPs. Imagine the article on Obama changing all pronouns to "it"... Do you think the editor doing so would not be reverted without question, and the one reverting not being questioned at all? If you can please provide a rationale for why Gwen should be treated differently, feel free to do so. Since you consider being called "it" not defamatory, I will call you that whenever I encounter you from now on. OK? Dendlai (talk) 13:54, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Please remain civil. That said, I suggest you read the BLP policy itself; the subject of this particular article is neither living nor recently deceased. –Juliancolton | Talk 13:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
BLPs are about all I work with, so while I appreciate your disappointment, I think I'll continue my work. Once again, your request is rejected as it does not fall under the BLP policy, considering your subject has been deceased for seven years and the policy isn't about preventing living relatives of BDP subjects from being upset. Obama, if you were watching TV last night, is still alive and well. Last, for what you prefer to call me, I really couldn't care less. I've been called far worse than "it". لennavecia 14:05, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict, may respond to it's further concerns if it merits it. <- Too.) I remained civil. Possibly the exception is where I said it wasn't fit to comment on BLPs. Since wikipedia is free to edit for anyone, it obviously is. I don't think that was a very grave error. If it is, I am sorry. It is clearly allowed to contribute. As for reading the BLP policy, do you refer to "Wikipedia is a high-profile, widely-viewed website with an international scope, which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.". Note that it doesn't say articles about living people. It DOES say "can affect their lives and the lives of their families, colleagues, and friends.". Calling a murder victim "it" quite obviously affects the lives of family, colleagues, friends. I mean, unless you are in an extremely small minority who likes being called "it". Dendlai (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Your request has been denied by two administrators, please either move on or take this to RFPP. Thank you. –Juliancolton | Talk 14:20, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Compelling argument considering neither of you have tried to address any of my arguments. But in a way I agree. See the talk page discussion. (though, a hint... In the future, do NOT try to win arguments by argument from authority? try to use actual arguments? Otherwise, it will come back to bite you).
This (WP) is a volunteer project, in general. Further, this particular page and process is being done as a special additional effort to see if novel approaches to addressing the BLP issue might be helpful. It's done by volunteers... who have in addition volunteered to help out here, despite having received some criticism for doing so. It intentionally has a somewhat narrow scope. Certainly we can entertain discussion of that scope, on the talk page (and you were pointed there and invited to participate), but it's not appropriate here on this particular article's thread. 2 of the volunteers deemed this article not suitable under the criteria we've developed. Nothing stops you from taking this to RFPP, and in fact, if you do so and I am the first person to see it I will no doubt protect it myself, but we want to keep the focus relatively narrow. Please do not argue tendentiously here. (you are, while you are in my user subspace, subject to refactoring, as the blue boxes at the top point out) Please do not be abusive to other editors here. I hope that is helpful. Thank you for your understanding. ++Lar: t/c 14:34, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
First I have to point out that you are lying. "Certainly we can entertain discussion of that scope, on the talk page (and you were pointed there and invited to participate)". I was never invited or poijnted to participate. I started participating there 'uninvited, before either of you. Doing the dicussion here instead of on the talk page is due to you and it not using the talk page, while I did so. I would have prefered using the talk page, but you two prefered using the "project" page. The fact that, as you say, "2 of the volunteers deemed this article not suitable under the criteria we've developed" means nothing. It has only made one talk page post in reply to mine (I was the first to start using the talk page), you have made none. You saying "Please do not argue tendentiously here." is very funny. I have used the talk page. I have tried to use the talk page early on. You... have not. Instead you prefer arguing from an "argument from authority" position. I will say... that.. I hope this is helpful. Have you found the talkpage yet? Dendlai (talk) 14:47, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Okay, this needs to wrap up, and you need to simmer down. Your arguments have been addressed, you just choose to ignore them. You're comparing someone who has been dead for seven years to a living president. Poor comparison. The article is also not a biography. It's an article on an event. Now, BLP as a policy can apply to any article, however, as the policy reads (and you quoted above): ... which means that material we publish about living people can affect their lives and the lives of their families, but you conveniently ignore the "about living people" part. We're not publishing material on a living person here. So, you're selectively reading policy and selectively reading our arguments, then claiming we are making none. This has become counter-productive, you've reduced yourself to using incivility to make your points, and it's all for no purpose. Your request has now been rejected by three administrators. And, despite your claim that stating such is an attempt to win an argument from authority, you clearly aren't putting the situation into perspective; considering administrative privileges are required to fulfill your request, it is quite relevant that those rejecting your request are administrators. Take it to WP:RFPP or let it go. لennavecia 15:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict, will address it's concerns next) I wont take the article to RFPP. Not mainly because the main "argument" over there is "There is not enough recent disruptive activity to justify protection at this time." but because this is a symbolic case. If severely vandalising the pages of murder victims were the parents are most likely alive, and their friends certainly are, isn't a BLP violation then what is? And I must add again that I think user:Jennavecia is being thoroughly disgusting. If it really can't see why changing the personal pronoun to "it" in an article is Seriously Bad... Honestly. Who else here thinks that is not seriously bad? Who here who thinks it is no big deal has the balls to try it on the Barack Obama article? Dendlai (talk) 15:16, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Once again, Obama is a living subject. It is not an apt comparison. And I did not say that the use of "it" was not A Bad ThingTM, merely that your request for protection has been made to the wrong forum. Considering your continued use of incivility and your complete inability to grasp simple facts and accept an absolute rejection of your request, I will no longer be participating in discussion on this matter. لennavecia 15:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
(Edit conflict again. Quotes should make it clear they replies are all to it's post). "you've reduced yourself to using incivility to make your points, and it's all for no purpose." Accusing me of using incivility is pretty serious. Can you please point out where I did? If you can't, will you strike out your vile and unfounded accusation? (Can you do it without me having to show the basis of it where you incredibly claim that changing personal pronouns to "it" isn't an insult, or even pretty serious vandalism?)
"And, despite your claim that stating such is an attempt to win an argument from authority, you clearly aren't putting the situation into perspective; considering administrative privileges are required to fulfill your request, it is quite relevant that those rejecting your request are administrators." You are here making a very strong argument for me. Is that your intention? Or what is your intention? Is you intention to say "Administrators rule over you, suck up to it"? That is the most obvious reading. If that wasn't it, please do explain, and please do read Wikipedia policies before doing so. Dendlai (talk) 15:36, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
Also, somehow lost in the edit conflicts and copy/pastes before. It claims that "Your arguments have been addressed, you just choose to ignore them. " Which is simply not true. Neither it nor Juliancolton addressed my arguments in any way that I could see. If they did, kindly show me? This seems, to me, to be an attempt by it to try to make it look like it and Juliancolton actually did anything beyond saying Adminz R Teh Win!!! Dendlai (talk) 15:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
It's not a matter of who's argument is stronger. "BLP" stands for "Biographies of Living Persons". And no, admins do not have authority over anybody, and I'm not sure where you got that idea from. –Juliancolton | Talk 16:09, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Can we all (not naming names) please step back from the who said what when and the accusations of incivility, lying and the like? This is not acceptable behaviour on this page, so let's everyone dial things down please, and start over, addressing the substantive matters around whether this article is or isn't in scope, why or why not, and if it does need protection (which I am not in any way disputing, but have't looked at it closely to see) what the right vehicle for gaining that protection is? Thanks. ++Lar: t/c 15:55, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Out of respect for you (Lar) I wont comment to any of the posts I have seeen previous to this one unless it becomes strictly neessary.
My Interpretation of BLP is that if the article of somebody could *seriously* hurt anybody, it should be BLP mterial. I, personally, think that the idea that unless an article is specficically about somebody, (and specifically in this case means the article having their exact name as a title), it isn't a BLP is stupid, and against BLP policy. Hence why I suggested Gwen. She is dead since 7 years, but it is CRAZY to think the article isn't extremely current. Her parents aint dead, her friends aint dead. It is like thinking that if... Britney Spears died today, we could use that article for whatever we like, including attacks on other current (alive) celebrities). Dendlai (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Reasons/addtional comments[edit]

I'm starting to think that the original additional comment I used and put in the header "Per liberal use of semiprotection policy, please consult with me before unprotecting" might not be a good idea and we should consider discontinuing it and replacing it with something less "I'm in charge here" ... Thoughts? (this seems to be one of the bones of contention at Wikipedia:ANI#User:Lar.2FLiberal_Semi ++Lar: t/c 13:33, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with "Per liberal use of semiprotection policy" and any additional comments specific to the article? As I stated at the above noted ANI thread, courtesy and usual practice (?) would indicate that another admin would enquire the motive before reverting the protection; unless they thought there was a very good reason to undo it. I think the "please consult" bit has overtones of ownership that is unneeded. Pedro :  Chat  14:12, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yep. I've stopped using that formulation (since it was suggested it was suboptimal, in an earlier thread) myself. I should take it off the suggestions, I guess. ++Lar: t/c 14:19, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 Done It has been removed. ++Lar: t/c 22:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Some jelly from the peanut gallery[edit]

Hey Lar, wow, this is a great idea! I definitely think this is a huge step in the right direction with regards to how we go about handling BLP's. I'd love to help if you've anything for me to do. Cheers mate oceeConas tá tú? 14:18, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

It is up to you. Anyone, admin or non, is welcome to participate. If you spot articles that are problematic feel free to list them here. If you spot articles already here that fit, feel free to protect them. ++Lar: t/c 18:44, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Temporary note[edit]

[8] Luckily, such stupidity can be ignored. لennavecia 14:21, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

See 2 threads up (and the AN/I thread)... the problem here is that it's already courtesy to talk to the protecting admin, that's accepted practice. But it rubs folk the wrong way the way it's worded. If a softer wording could be devised, that might be a good thing. I myself have stopped using that wording (but I don't do most of the work round here. :) ) ++Lar: t/c 14:24, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't use it anymore either, but just as it's expected that admins should consult before overturning, we know it's not always done that way, AND it's not inappropriate to put out such a reminder. Rather, it's another example of people looking for something to complain about instead of helping fix the problems. I've got no tolerance for it left. لennavecia 14:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
I hear you and sympathise. Could we come up with a softer wording that gets the request across but avoids the ownership issue? That might be the best approach. ++Lar: t/c 14:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Just leave it off completely, I suppose. I use option three most of the time. Two if there's previous protections. لennavecia 17:37, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Archiving this page[edit]

On what time frame do we want to archive this page? لennavecia 14:38, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Dunno... I tend to archive my main talk page a month at a time, somewhere around the early middle of the next month, leaving out threads that are still active. But I don't have any strong feelings as long as we don't push off anything still under discussion. I know a lot of other people use bots but I still do it the old fashioned way. ++Lar: t/c 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
Yea, manual archiving FTW. I archive anywhere from a couple of days to a week. Perhaps here we could archive all sections that have had no replies in two weeks or more? لennavecia 17:35, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

"the kind of vandalism that semiprotection stops"[edit]

What do you mean by this statement? Under one interpretation, semi-protection doesn't stop any kind of vandalism if its author is sufficiently motivated. On the other hand, it stops all kinds of vandalism if the author is not so motivated. Under yet another interpretation, it stops, for example, harmless test edits, but does not stop offensive additions from persistent vandals. Is this just deliberately vague wording so you can pretect pretty much anything you like? Gurch (talk) 18:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

It's meant more in the technical sense, i.e. semi-protection only prevents edits by IP or non auto-confirmed accounts, so we should only take edits by those types of accounts into consideration. Kevin (talk) 22:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi Gurch! Now that Kevin explained what is meant, do you have a suggested wording improvement? ++Lar: t/c 05:20, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I'm a little puzzled as to why biographies need special protection from the more harmless varieties of vandalism (bits of formatting from clicking the toolbar, "can I really edit this?", gibberish and so forth). I can see that unsourced negative content, offensive content, potentially libellous content, and so forth are more problematic for biographies than for other types of article and so potentially warrant special attention. But I don't see who is being harmed if some guy inserts '''Bold text''' sfsdifsdoj at the bottom of a biography just to see if it shows up. I would replace "vandalism" with "contributions in violation of the policy on biographies of living persons", which excludes harmless edits like these and includes numerous things that aren't vandalism but are still problematic on biographies. Gurch (talk) 11:29, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure that any of the admins that patrol this page would protect a BLP for that type of vandalism. Also, specific to the sentence that discusses test edits, all that is being pointed out is that semi-protection stops all test edits. This isn't to imply it's a good thing. It seems to me to be pointing out a flaw with semi-protection in general. It keeps out the test edits of new users while allowing determined vandals to do their damage. That's my interpretation of what you've quoted, but it does seem unnecessarily wordy to me. لennavecia 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
@Gurch: Semiprotection is not a perfect solution to the BLP problem. But absent flagged revisions, (which also is not perfect but is better than where we are now) it's a tool to use. If you have a specific wording, I think we're very open to that, can you suggest it? Or make the change in the wording yourself... if I don't agree I'll revert you, no worries. Please also remember that this little experiment doesn't purport to deal with every BLP problem. Only the kind that semiprotection can address, and further, only the kind that's easy to spot. The idea here is that this should be a low overhead process... fast to report, fast to check, fast to protect, but therefore imperfect in that it doesn't handle complex cases, or cases where fact checking is needed, etc... only obvious vandalism. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
And, of course, emphasis on vandalism. We shouldn't be seeing protection over test edits; however, another flaw in any system is the chance for human error, so point out any such cases and we'll clear them up. لennavecia 18:48, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Page protection FYI[edit]

Seeing as this talk page has it's own group of visitors apart from your main user page, I am just leaving a quick note here to let anyone interested know that at User talk:Lar#Protection of your user pages I have questioned the semi-protection given to this page in particular and of all of Lar's pages in general. Please discuss wherever Lar sees fit.--Doug.(talk contribs) 22:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

This little experiment, gathering data on various things, was set up with specific operating parameters, among them that you need to be an established user to make a request. (remember, this isn't a formal or official process or replacement for any particular process... it started when the volume of people turning up on my page asking me to protect things got high enough that it was disrupting traffic there, so this was set up as a place to take requests and it just sort of evolved rapidly).
Arguably semi-protection isn't necessarily "needed" to enforce that behaviour pattern, but it reduces time wasted in validating who makes requests. I'm not particularly sussed if the consensus of the regular participants here is that it's in fact not needed. One of the other admins participating here is welcome to remove it if they feel consensus is for that. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I have read all of the comments at User talk:Lar#Protection of your user pages. In relation to this page and your concern that Lar has instigated the semi-protection himself I am willing to unprotect and the reprotect so as to overcome the concern that Lar has protected this page. I do not make that offer as a sign of flippancy over your argument Doug, however as can be seen by that offer I am in favour of keeping this page semi-protected during its experimentation phase.--VS talk 11:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for making the offer. But that strikes me as process wankery to satisfy someone's more or less baseless concern. Not even wonkery, wankery. If the page needs semi protection, it already is... see Wikipedia:User_page#Use_of_page_protection_for_user_pages - "Administrators may protect their own user pages when appropriate". The argument here ought to be whether it's necessary, not who should do it. ++Lar: t/c 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
PS this is in no way a denigration of your thoughtful and kind offer, VS! ++Lar: t/c 13:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
Not taken that way Lar - but thanks for your follow up PS. Indeed I was attempting to subtly make the same points that you have.--VS talk 22:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
The self-protection is not the major concern it's just the reason there's any concern; if Lar had gone to an uninvolved admin explained the situation and gotten the page protected I would say "fine" but Lar made the decision himself to IAR in favor of his interests. Ratification by an uninvolved admin doesn't help. If we need to change the proces then let's change the process but current policy does not allow the precautionary protection of userpages. I am completely open to the idea that the policy is outdated, I just don't think it's appropriate to ignore it whenever it's inconvenient.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's a wider concern you have. The issue of this particular page has been taken care of, though, as at least one admin other than Lar is willing to protect. Enigmamsg 21:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Wow, if two admins agreeing on a protection were sufficient to let it be, most of our articles would be protected. But that Lar did it in his userspace is not the biggest issue of all, it's that this protection, namely to enforce a ban of IP and new users from using a process, as default and without good cause, has no basis whatsoever in the protection policy. If it were a protection due to a concern of vandalism, or harassment, I wouldn't mind; I don't mind if his userpage is fully protected or not. But that's the basis for the protection (and the statement on this page) that is completely extraneous to our practices and principles, and even in contradiction with them. Cenarium (talk) 16:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
I completely disagree with your assessment that it's outside policy, or that it's done to "enforce a ban" on IPs or new users "using this process"... First, this page isn't a "process", it's just a user page where people can leave messages, just as they did on my user page. That some things have been done to make that efficient doesn't make it a "process". Further, if I preannounce that I will be ignoring requests from IPs, as is my right, I don't have to act on any given request. I'm a volunteer, please remember we're all volunteers here, and no one HAS to act on any given request in particular. It seems rather inefficient to let IPs even make these requests in the first place. Why waste their time? They can go to WP:RFPP, and not have their time wasted by being ignored by me. So I hope that clears up THOSE misconceptions of yours.
But, that said, if you're an admin, and if this page is on your watchlist, feel free to unprotect it... and be done with this tiresome discussion. I shan't wheelwar with you about something as picayune as this. By the way, what have you personally done to try to address the BLP problem lately? This discussion does not in any way help address the very real and very serious issues that unprotected, unflagged BLPs cause. My perception of your actions here is that you are engaged in process wankery for no real benefit. ++Lar: t/c 19:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you, Lar, in most respects - but Cenarium is, I believe, the person primarily responsible for the most recent (and seemingly successful, if not implemented) proposal and poll for FlaggedRevs. Nathan T 20:38, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
I supported Flagged Protection not because it's a good idea, but because it gets the technology turned on. Don't know who said "there isn't consensus for Flagged Revisions" in the writeup of this proposal, but I think that statement is misguided. Still, I struck the 'what have you done lately' bit as a bit too confrontational in any case. ++Lar: t/c 22:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
In your own protection rationale, you said that this page is part of a process that anons and new users are not eligible to use. But it's fine, I won't argue over this any more, and I may have been a little too confrontational in my comments too. In the recent months, I spent most of my limited time onwiki to prepare and push for that implementation (which also includes patrolled revisions), as well as proposing enhancements for the FlaggedRevs and AbuseFilter extensions, with the aim of better handling the vandalism and BLP problems. I focus on the areas I think I can be the most useful. Cenarium (talk) 00:13, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Clairvoyant or what?[edit]

Maybe I should go into business as a clairvoyant....see protection log of Mischa_Barton :) Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

new template[edit]

I have created {{pp-semi-blp}} for semi-protection of BLPs, so that they can be tracked separately from non-BLP cases. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:57, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Should this always put things in the "permanently semi" category? As for the small thing, get Jack on it, he can fix it. ++Lar: t/c 19:56, 8 August 2009 (UTC)
There is an expiry parameter. I don't think it is working correctly yet.
If we can get it working correctly, we can have a special category for "BLPs whose semi-protection expiries next month", so we can review those articles. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:07, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
Useful template John.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 11:01, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

about to expire[edit]

I haven't set up the voodoo yet, but it is desperately needed as I have noticed that a lot of blps will expire this month, esp. on the 14th.
Gustavo Manduca is about to expire, so it needs to be reviewed urgently. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

John Mosley is also about to expire. John Vandenberg (chat) 13:27, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

José Sócrates ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 13:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Juan Francisco García ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 13:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Kanye West ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 13:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Mark Grebner ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 13:48, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Patsy Palmer ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 14:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Selita Ebanks ..--John Vandenberg (chat) 14:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Zoe Saldana .. that's all folks. I'll improve the template before the 14th to catch those. John Vandenberg (chat) 14:50, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Usefulness of this set of pages?[edit]

Some stats from the archive listing on the main page:

  • Protected during March 2009: 7 ( a partial month since this was when things were set up)
  • Protected during April, 2009: 91
  • Protected during May 2009: 29
  • Protected during June 2009: 9
  • Protected during July 2009: 4

So far in August (which is 2/3 over) we have one protection. Note the asymptotic decline. Has this set of pages outlived its usefulness? I realised I hadn't even checked in a week to see if something was awaiting review. With Flagging imminent, are we done? ++Lar: t/c 17:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps. People can always make requests on our talk pages. Lara 22:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
Has served its purpose well - I'm with Lara; indeed I get more requests on my talk page than here nowadays. Other reason it has slowed is related to the fact that Enigma (at first a non-administrator often seeking support) is now dealing with these matters outside of this arena also.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 04:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
Nod. 'l let it run to the end of the month then and see. If the trend continues, archive this and mark it as not active, encouraging requesters to go to individual talk pages instead (yours, Jenn's, mine, or if anyone else says theirs as well...). Actually deleting the pages seems not a good idea though, a record should be kept. ++Lar: t/c 11:41, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

See traffic stats: page: 131 and talk: 94 ... this has outlived usefulness. time to archive. I will take care of it. Thanks everyone! ++Lar: t/c 19:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

  • Been a pleasure to assist Lar.--VirtualSteve need admin support? 21:54, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Well, all I can say is *sniff*. It started a trend. BLP protection is a norm. It was a good page. We'll remember it fondly. Lara 22:31, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, everyone. The main page has been "sunsetted". I'm glad it did some good. Best, and see you in the trenches. ++Lar: t/c 01:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I wish we still had this going. Enigmamsg 07:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC)